I know nothing about politics.

[Dave Gray]

I figured that Obama would run away with the election, as he had been ahead the whole time, and still held a lead after both conventions.

But, today, Gallup has McCain leading nationwide 48% to 45%.

I wonder where this latest bounce came from...

[jtex316]

It's Sunday. All the God worshipers are out in force.

[JVides]

People worry that Obama's not ready for prime time.  And while people have the same worry about Palin, she MAY only lead the nation someday if voted in, whereas Obama WILL lead the nation.  Plus, the guy's very new on the scene.  Nobody knowa anything about him.  He has 60 days to make a stronger impression than "wow, he's inspiring".

[Dave Gray]

Again, I'm always wrong, but -- I don't think that's it.

I don't think the experience thing is as much of an issue.  People who are rallying behind that cause were going to rally behind the GOP candidate anyway.  ...and Obama's not getting any less experienced....why is the number shifting now.  If experience was an issue, you'd think it'd would've shown up before now.

I think it's a perception of taxes.  People think Obama is going to raise their taxes, I guess.  ...at least in the circles I talk to.

[JVides]

Well, let me tell ya Dave, my wife would have voted Hillary in 3 seconds flat, but is unlikely to vote Obama because she distrusts his experience.  As for the tax thing, I worry about it a bit because I don't see how 5% of taxpayers are going to make up for the other 95%.  I think I need to see a lot more on this before I can bless his tax plan (it's my thing, as you know).

[Dave Gray]

Well, let me tell ya Dave, my wife would have voted Hillary in 3 seconds flat, but is unlikely to vote Obama because she distrusts his experience.  As for the tax thing, I worry about it a bit because I don't see how 5% of taxpayers are going to make up for the other 95%.  I think I need to see a lot more on this before I can bless his tax plan (it's my thing, as you know).

I don't know what you mean by "5% has to make up for 95%".

I saw a graph on the news the other day (which I cannot reproduce) and it showed the tax payment for both Obama and McCain, for varying tax brackets.

They were basically the same for everyone under 250K/year.  Above that number, the rate increased exponentially as you made more money with Obama's plan, but kept steady with McCain's plan.

If you're making 2.3 million or more, the taxes were drastically different -- something like 100K for McCain and 700K for Obama.

You may think that's unfair -- and that's fine -- but it's not a "make up for the other 95%" type situation.  Obama's plan will just bring in more money, from the pockets of 250K+.  Below that, the tax breaks are the same.

[JVides]

I mean that Obama has stated he would cut taxes for the middle class and poor.  The numbers I hear the talking heads spout over and over again is that Obama's tax increases would affect only the top 5% wage earners.  If this is so (I've seen no graphics) I don't know how those 5% will make up for the cuts (or no change) in tax liabilities of the other 95% of taxpayers.

As for the numbers you mention, a person earning $2.3 million in 2008 (ordinary income) would pay approximately $776,000 in taxes (before deductions and credits).  That's current law.  Maybe it was $700K McCain and $1M Obama?
I don't know.

Current tax brackets for businesses and individuals (if you're curious)

  http://www.smbiz.com/sbrl001.html

[Brian Fein]

If you make 2.3 million per year, you can afford to pay taxes.  If you make $35k a year, you can't afford to pay rent.

[JVides]

If you make 2.3 million per year, you can afford to pay taxes.  If you make $35k a year, you can't afford to pay rent.

That's neither here nor there.  I'm not asking for a defense of his tax program; I'm just saying that I think if you cut taxes on 95% of people and only raise it on 5% (which, according to Wiki, are people making over $167,500 and up...link>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Income) you won't make up the difference in revenues lost.  Now, I could be wrong, but that's what I think.  I also think that any gains in income tax would not help unless there's a corresponding cut in spending.  A DEEP cut in spending, which I've only seen McCain promise (not that it means it'll happen).

[run_to_win]

I saw a graph on the news the other day (which I cannot reproduce) and it showed the tax payment for both Obama and McCain, for varying tax brackets.

They were basically the same for everyone under 250K/year.  Above that number, the rate increased exponentially as you made more money with Obama's plan, but kept steady with McCain's plan.

If you're making 2.3 million or more, the taxes were drastically different -- something like 100K for McCain and 700K for Obama.

You may think that's unfair -- and that's fine -- but it's not a "make up for the other 95%" type situation.  Obama's plan will just bring in more money, from the pockets of 250K+. 

In theory yes, but in the reality of our current complicated tax-system, no.  People who make more than $250,000 can afford accountants who know all the loopholes.   Those in your $2.3 mil example will gladly pay $100,000 to accountants before they pay $600,000 to the government.

In addition, Obama's whole reasoning for raising taxes on the rich is fairness, not revenue.  He said so.  When it was brought to his attention that raising taxes might lower revenues he repeated, (paraphrasing), "It's not the revenue, it's an issue of fairness."

As far as income tax goes, REAL fairness would be a flat tax in which everyone pays the same percentage.  Even better would be the consumption tax idea that Frimp has talked about.  People who buy just the basics wouldn't pay tax.  People who buy more would.

Again,

When the government lowers income taxes, tax revenues rise.

Tax Cuts vs. Government Revenue

In each of the last three cuts in marginal tax rates, revenues received by the U.S. Treasury have increased. Coolidge cut income tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal income tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s.

Under Coolidge, marginal income tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually.

Under Kennedy, marginal income tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.

Under Reagan, marginal income tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.

In each case, the personal income taxes paid by "the rich" increased when their tax rates were cut.

[Dave Gray]

I misspoke...the 100K thing I estimated was a difference.

Here is the exact clip that I saw: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fbxpMw4mco

It explains the difference.  Everyone gets tax cuts ...but once you get to over 2 million, you start paying out the ass.

[run_to_win]

If you make $35k a year, you can't afford to pay rent.

Which is why they probably pay $0 net income tax.

38% of income earning Americans pay $0 income tax.  Under Obama that will allegedly go the 50%.
 

[JVides]

It explains the difference.  Everyone gets tax cuts ...but once you get to over 2 million, you start paying out the ass.

Seriously...wow.  I can see a jump in expatriations if this happens (people renouncing U.S. citizenship).

[Phishfan]

To get back to the original question, these polls mean crap anyway. A pollster can get any result they want by simply knowing where to target the people they poll. That's why.

[Fau Teixeira]

the polling will change after the debates if obama isn't a pussy.  if he goes into the debates and keeps calling mccain "george the second" then you'll see the polling change .. if he's overly polite .. you'll see him getting killed.

why anyone would vote for four more years of bush is beyond me .. at least with a 80% negatives on his approval rating .. how would the 30% of people that dissaprove of bush end up justifying voting for mccain is beyond my comprehension.

also nationwide polling is worthless .. we don't tally nationwide vote counts to elect the president .. obama leads in every swing state .. who cares if 80% of montana doesn't like him .. he doesn't need to win montana .. all he needs is 50.1% of florida, penn, ohio, michigan and that's all she wrote